Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Thanks for sharing, YT. I would make sweet sweet love to that awesome cactus. Im not sure about the ID because all the Cordobensis i know look diffrent but its very interesting. Does it produce seeds? You could make some very interesting crosses with this one. bye Eg

Honestly i dont really know what super pedro looks like, dont have any myself and apparently theres two clones around named as such one more scop the other more peru? Going on what PD mentioned over at AE - he would be the man to clarify such issues. actually if anyone can post some super pedro pics that would be most funky

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The name cordobensis is defunct & they are more likely a scopulicola allied. Although 'cordobensis' still gives us an idea of the plant people are talking about.

I think its more than likely synonymous with 'super pedro' & 'Trich sp Lance' aswell as a half dozen other common name synonyms. Most of it has been discussed at length here & elsewhere.

I have a few super pedro's & have seen a few big mothers & like most cacti it exhibits different morphology due to variables such as age, gorwing conditions amount of sun & the like which accounts for their variability.

Michael on the cordobensis naming:

"Passive, I agree with foolsbreathe, but with a caveat. T. cordobensis first of all is a completely inaccurate and unrecognized name and appears to come from a plant in my collection that I received under the name from NMCR. I'd call it a mislabel for sure, but my repeating this name along with photos I have spread has made it stick. But this T. cordobensis appears to be one of two main variations of T. scopulicola, the extremely short spined one that is quite common in the States, and a longer spined version which appears to be somewhat common in Australia and which I saw in large stands there myself. This longer spined T. scopulicola appears to go by the name of "Lance" in Australia and is indistinguishable from the original NMCR T. cordobensis in my collection and also with other long spined form in my collection of different origins but which came with the name T. scopulicola and two ID#s FR991 & RIV S1438/7. The FR refers to Friedrich Ritter, the second number I haven't taken the time to look into (but suggestions are welcome). One of my future hopes is to get a copy of Ritter's Kakteen in Südamerika, a translation to English preferably. I thought someone was working on that in Australia, but I may be wrong."

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Thanks for throwing that out shruman. I was close to saying the same thing again, but you saved me the time.

I'm not going to be happy until I start seeing T. scopulicola plants in habitat. In years of looking over photos of plants in South America I have yet to find one with T. scopulicola (the exception being a photo of an apparent T. scopulicola in Chile that was likely planted at its location from elsewhere).

Does Ritter's work have a photo?

Honestly though, considering that T. scopulicola has been around for awhile it would seem that it has had just as much ability as other species to join the mix, and so though one might say there are two predominant T. scopulicola, an extremely short spined and a ever so slightly longer spined, you can not rule out that Australia might not have other genetic lines than these two. So in the end I wouldn't want to simply say that Lance, super Pedro, etc., are synonymous with the plant called T. cordobensis, but only that they appear to from my perspective, which is not particularly good.

PD, I take it you have seen plants with the names "spiney scop, super ped, lance, big scop" all growing in a similar environment for an accurate check to see if they are all in fact quite identical? I'll look to get new pictures up of my T. cordobensis from NMCR, but unfortunately the only mature growth I have at the time is a four ribber which might throw off a good comparison.

Interestingly if the FR991 plant, which is the longer spined form of T. scopulicola, is the "standard" for T. scopulicola from Tarija, O'Connor Province, in Bolivia, then what is the origins of the shorter spined form?

lotsa ifs, as usual and its a big if that these Au plants are syn wit cordo, which is what has been assumed by some Au growers apparently considering they have applied the name cordobensis to this plant.

WHERE did the name cordobensis come from again????????

I got no idea where or what this super pedro is but it is easily recognisable and distinguishable from other plants, call it wot u will, but she be a big fatty.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

"IF IF" for sure on whether or not the short spined form exist naturally. As for the longer spined form that is considered the FR991 I also think there is an "if" since without a clear picture of the plants in Burnet O'Connor Province I couldn't even say that the plants labeled FR991 are the ones in that province as opposed to them being a plant of unknown providence that was considered a T. scopulicola and so someone simply attached the FR991 to it thinking it would match what Ritter saw. Hell, I even bet you can find FR991 attached to the short spined form as well. So, clearly we need a good picture from Ritter (Trout mentions a couple poor pictures), as otherwise we can't even rule out either form as being that of Burnet O'Connor Province and what Ritter considered T. scopulicola.

I think this could be a nice little project for someone to settle, as it's likely that in southern Bolivia there are multiple subspecies of T. scopulicola. There are a lot of unknowns about this species, but if most other Trichocereus species have multiple subspecies or varieties due to niche evolution, e.g., T. tacaquerensis, T. terscheckii, T. chiloensis, and others that can be presumed to have a low probability of human intervention, why can't T. scopulicola as well? Hell, I bet a biologist could write a whole research paper on the subject of T. scopulicola if they had the backing and finances.

Trout's work seems to be the best collection of info on the subject, but it doesn't clear up everything. Well that's enough, I'm rambling.

PD, check out shruman's quoting of some of my previous comments regarding where the name T. cordobensis appears to have come from.

~Michael~

1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Yeah MS can you post pictures of a mature FR991? My small cutting I got from you years ago is just now starting to thicken up. Certainly different and more spiny than my Au sourced Scopulicola which has absolutely no spines at all. Smooth as a baby's ass

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Yeah MS can you post pictures of a mature FR991? My small cutting I got from you years ago is just now starting to thicken up. Certainly different and more spiny than my Au sourced Scopulicola which has absolutely no spines at all. Smooth as a baby's ass

with the cordo thing thats what i was told its been labeled/called but that in no way means that is what it actually is, just relaying what i'd been told. so yeah hope im not perpetuating the miss-use of that name and or confusing people.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I can check Ritters book for pics about Trichocereus Scopulicola and Trichocereus Cordobensis. But if i remember right, there werent any good ones, when Trout and me were looking into it one or two years ago. bye Eg